Skip to main content

tv   MTA Board of Directors 41916  SFGTV  April 24, 2016 6:00am-9:01am PDT

6:00 am
retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf ethics.org and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www..
6:01 am
>> shop and dine the 49 promotes loophole businesses and changes residents to do thirds shopping and diane within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services we help san francisco remain unique and successful where will you shop and dine shop and dine the 49. >> my name is neil the general manager for the book shop here on west portal avenue if san francisco this is a neighborhood bookstore and it is a wonderful neighborhood but it is an interesting community because the residents the neighborhood muni loves the neighborhood it is community and we as a book sincerely we see the same people here the shop all the time and you know to a certain degree this is part
6:02 am
of their this is created the neighborhood a place where people come and subcontract it is in recent years we see a drop off of a lot of bookstores both national chains and neighborhoods by the neighborhood stores where coming you don't want to - one of the great things of san francisco it is neighborhood neighborhood have dentist corrosive are coffeehouses but 2, 3, 4 coffeehouses in month neighborhoods that are on their own- that's >> call the roll please.
6:03 am
director heinicke, director nolan, ramos, present, directors please be adviced that director of the board will not be here today however, you have a quorum and you can proceed. please be adviced that the ringing of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibits at the meeting. any person responsible for one going off maybe asked the to leave the room. also, gentlemen, if you would please find a seat, we need to honor fire code. so people standing need to find a seat. thank you very much. item for approval of the minutes of the april 5th of regular meeting. >> a motion to approve. >> second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? . thank you. next item, please. item 5, communications, directors. item 6 with new unfinished
6:04 am
business. item 7, directors board. >> good afternoon, members of the public and staff. just a few things to report to you on and give you updates. the first is that we just this week maybe within the last week we released our annual bike count report. this is something we've been doing since 2006. at those intersections from 2006 to 2015 bicycling we saw 184% increase. last year we hit a million. market street bike barometer. we hit that in december. it was a 25% decrease over 2014. extrapolating from the data we got in this report. we are estimating 2,000 bike trips daily in san francisco.
6:05 am
we've been using automated bike counters and found that weekend bike trips increased from 2014-2016 to brought you the to 2.4 million trips to 2.6 million trips in just 1 year. a pretty good increase there. according to the us census bureaus that bikes make-up for all trips. back in 2006 it was 2.3%. to 2.4%, a pretty good jump. 85% of the bike improvements that we made that you authorized from 2010-2014. located neighborhoods that have more that the citywide average of 4.4 percent than the commute. so whether we are targeting
6:06 am
areas that are more conducive to biking or areas that are attracting to more areas of cycling. it's great to see that overlap. it seems that we are making investments in the right places. so the continued increase in cycling coincides with the steady improvements which we are making to get in the bikes and alleviates crowding and great for pollution. we would like to thank those for making these improvements who have been paying off which seem to be very measurable and significant due to crowding. that was great. somewhat on the same theme, this is bike and roll to school week.
6:07 am
it's the eighth annual such week. coordinating by the san francisco bicycle coalition with our state route to school program in the city. i actually road from excelsior in the playground. once a week there are families from three different schools that gather and excelsior playground and do a walking or riding to school buses. it's phenomenal that this just has grown up organically in the neighborhood. it was less than a half hour to get
6:08 am
to work. >> it's just a reminder. we will have thousands of kids participating. nearly ninety schools across san francisco will be participating. this is a national movement in more than 40 countries and in all 50 states in our great country. the mission is to make walking and biking to school safer and moyer accessible for children includes those with disabilities and increasing those who are walking. we had a great turnout today and hopefully during the week. it's good to see young folks getting around. many of us learned how to recycle
6:09 am
from our kids. moving on, i think i mentioned before that san francisco is participating in the u.s. challenge and there were five chosen which san francisco was one. last wednesday, our city met with the department of transportation to discuss smart city challenge proposal to get their feedback. we had numerous of our partners and potential partners in the room. there must have been 60 people in the room from the private sector to non-profit, advocacy sector. it was a
6:10 am
strong showing of the breath of partnership. it will award $40 million to the city. there is an it's a $50 million award to the city. we are one of seven. the innovative technology they are starting to evaluate and testing including self driven cars and smart vehicles and transportation network. another priority of smart city challenge along with our strategic goals is to make sure the deployment of this technology focus on safety and equity. these changes will benefit all san franciscans,
6:11 am
so our competition is austin, texas, ohio, everybody is putting a strong showing. us dot is going to all cities. we will know where we stand in june. pretty exciting that we've been able to advance to this point. last thing i wanted to mention that tomorrow as everybody knows is april 20th. known as 420. we are working as part of an effort to bring the city together to ensure that everybody can whether
6:12 am
they are participating or not can have a safe event and the rest of the folks particularly the neighborhoods surrounding the park are not unduly adversely impacted. our enforcement folks in particular as well as transit force will try to minimize impacts on muni and keep things flowing. lastly as part of this report, i'm going to ask our transit planning chief to give you a little bit of an over view of changes that go into the series of the service changes that you authorized as part of this budget
6:13 am
>> good afternoon, directors. yes, not julie, sean kennedy, project manager for sf mta. i want to highlight for you some really exciting changes that are going to be taking place april 23. rd. 2 years ago this body increased by 10%. this is known out of the transit effect in this project. and developed over the years
6:14 am
of community outreach, community input to really help reduce crowding and performance. we made that promise in july of 2014 that in the next fiscal year budget we would deliver 10% service increase. to this change, we will fulfilling that promise of reaching that 10% additional increase in service. and, you know, it's a pretty exciting moment for us. i mean, you would be really hard press today look back in the entire history in san francisco to find more service on the street than you will be finding after april 23rd. it's exciting news. this has been built for years of hard work both in operator shortage and filling that need and filling the back fill with your support on new buses, new metrics for improving service around the city.
6:15 am
this is the fourth round of service increase. it equates to about 10%. the total 10% service increase. roughly about $20 million a year annually in this package of roots. what is interesting about this service is we are improving every area of service. we are doing connectivity lines. i want to go through some specifics
6:16 am
on that. a total of 18 lines we are approving. extending service hours on eight lines. last time we talked about increasing the expanding service on some of the express routes because we realized that people don't commute at the same time they are used to and changing to adapting at how often and when people are going to and from work and also creating new connections and really trying to leverage the idea of the regional network, the work and improving connections to those networks and then improving the services as well, the 24-hour services for the city. these are a table of the specific lines. as i mentioned weekend lrv service or light rail service in the system is really getting a
6:17 am
nice belly rub. the idea is 10-minute frequency, the point is to increase reliability in the tunnel. right now the way the schedules kind of mesh together, you get a 5-8-minute break between trains coming in the tunnel. with this, the idea that ever since the five lines in the tunnel, basically every 2 minutes there will be a train coming in the tunnel. we think one is going to help with the reliability for the overall system and two provide that service for the trunk and core part of our line. also want to point out the 10-12 folsom. we are increasing frequency on those two lines. that's also, those are two specific lines we hear a lot about in gaps and
6:18 am
service. that will help with those lines. expanding service hours. one of the gems in this service package is the addition of the 28 r, currently the 28 r is a school tripper. it runs from 7-9:00 a.m. in the morning and 2-4:00 p.m.. and we really think that this is, the idea that we are going to all day service. 7-7 on this line that we will really improve connectivity throughout the corridor. we are pretty excited about this, 10-minute head ways and all the way down. the route will have a map in the back.
6:19 am
instead of going to daly city then to balboa park and connecting geneva. it's connecting the southeastern portion with the northwestern portion of the city. those are travel patterns that we have seen over the last decade or so that has become an important travel service that didn't have that service. we are excited about adding this 28 r. the 14 r connecting on an all day basis. right now it's just during the peak periods. we think that will add a lot of service. and the expresses extending those an extra hour in the evening to get some of those later night trips, those early evening trips. and then of course the 57, pash park
6:20 am
merced, we made some changes to that service. the 18 used to service this part of the line and started at 5:00 a.m. and the next one at 6:00 a.m.. we added service to the 57. the e line, we'll start weekday service, currently it's just weekends. it will be weekday from 10-7 p.m.. :00 p.m.. i want to bring up another line. that is 2 clemente. we feel that the service line is crowded. it needs more service on the center portion of the line. we are adding a 2 clemente
6:21 am
short line from it's current terminal to california and presidio. then the regular two will continue as it does today out to 58 park press the 2 br will carry it down to glen park bart. there is 2 hours we are implementing the 44 and 48. it's a segment for the two lines. the owl service, there will be a full presentation on this a little bit later. the owl service itself, we know there is a gap in service in the southern portion of the city.
6:22 am
the idea is we really strive to have everybody within the city view within a half mile of a 24-hour transit service. so, there is like there are several gaps in these two lines that are meant to address and help with. i want to point out that the rapid service started a year ago. happy birthday, rapid. i do want to know, by the way, we are managing the system and increasing performance. some of the rapid lines are 75-80% on time. as you are aware our
6:23 am
system is low 60s. we have peak crowding on this line. peak period went to about 4.5% on this line. that's something we are really excited about. on time performance in general has gone up 5% on the route. that's really a testament to the idea of better management, having enough drivers to fill all the runs. having enough vehicles to make the runs everyday. some of the really hard work that the trade and division has done in the last several years to really beef up and provide that service. when you provide that service, you don't have the gaps on service that are slowing down the line and the run. with that, i want to
6:24 am
say that as we continue to move forward, we want to make improvements specifically to the routes we just made. i don't want to underestimate how much we appreciate your help and what it has done for the riders and really making this truly a fantastic c ce to live. thank you supervisor wiener is here. >>supervisor scott weiner: i
6:25 am
would like to say how thrilled we are to have this service increase. both extremely positive. i want to mention some of the work that this team has been able to do in these often and very difficult circumstances. that's not why i'm here today. i'm here today to follow up on a letter that i sent you last week about what i think is an unacceptable funneling of a huge number of commuter shuttles on the one street, dolores street. it's a very unfair impact to one street. as you know i have been very vocal in support of the commuter shuttle program. i think it's an extremely important way of getting people out of their cars. this is a classic example of cause and effect. i have respectfully disgreementd with some
6:26 am
of the directions the agency has gone with sometimes responding to some outside pressure of my colleagues continually restrict where the shuttles can go and what stops they can use. i'm a strong supporter of managing the system well but what's happened is every time the number of stops are reduced, every time the number of streets are reduced, what ends up happening is funneling, it's not surprising, they are commuting the shuttles to arterials. they didn't realize what that meant. if you happen to live on arterials like dolores street, in this case you are going to have 55
6:27 am
shuttles on your street with a morning commute for a street that hasn't had buses on it. that is a significant change. i'm asking you to not do this, to my constituents, to my neighbors. -- i think dispersing the shuttles has to be the game. i think they have done a tremendous job. in my district work when we had funneling on first street and duncan
6:28 am
street to disburse shuttles so people can get onto the freeway. i'm asking to you please take that into account. please take a hard look for what this is going to mean for the corridor. my support for the shuttle program has not gone down by 1 millimeter. i just want to see more disbursal. thank you for your service. >> mr. chairman, there is no determined for the speaker cards. >> the increase in trips by bicycle per day is just so good to see because i think it puts some
6:29 am
data around what we see which is more and more cyclist than just cyclist traffic jams. without data, we are just people with opinions and it's good to see that what we are seeing. also, the community bart day, is fantastic. in conjunction with the red carpet on mission street is really going to help that commercial corridor. i think we saw somewhere in the data around that, something like 60% the people that visit that commercial corridor do arrive by transit. as they are going to be in
6:30 am
different parts. >> mr. ramos? >> thank you for expanding the service. i would hope we would have the tools and measurements or systems in place to look for what i sense might become intentionally seeing more bunching and gapping when you have a lot more service instead of having the infrastructure to keep that moving without bunch. i would hope that we can stay away from that, but at the same time, when you just put more service onto a corridor without the requisite lanes or traffic signal priority or we've done the all door boarding which is great. but to anticipate for that to prevent that bunching from happening in the future. we know when we see
6:31 am
buses bunched up. you have a whole lot on the front and a lot on the back and that is a wasted money. if we had infrastructure improvement to go with the improvement to roll out. thank you all for the very exciting news. >> i'm getting a little bit concerned. we are over the limit in this room for the fire. >> excuse me. i have an public comment on item 7. to sharing the results. the on going
6:32 am
report out of metrics for the report on how each line is performing. i hope those reports will not only be shared with the report but publically easily available to see how things are going to the extend that changes are needed and monitored. i think some things will be successful. but i think it's important to monitor and report and be able to make changes for maybe not june but in august. finally on that route changes, generally, although we'll talk about them in later items. the maps and the shelters and the realtime information throughout the system needs to be updated. that took a long time after the last set of changes. i hope that's already in the works. i'm not sure if that's going to happen by saturday. that would be nice. it's important to have that information for riders. >> thank you. any others for the director's report? seeing
6:33 am
none. on going activities. >> nancy, followed by albert chow. >> can i thank sf govtv for getting the captioning working finally. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is nancy, i served for nine long wonderful years in the parking open space advisory committee which an acquainted me with the background of how the government function or doesn't. hopefully it functions very nice, thank you. i'm also a member of the action committee group sunset for 4 years and i'm also the
6:34 am
founder of park side for kids as you know is the diane feinstein elementary cool. we made sure for 4 years the bond money didn't get lost. i'm here and i'm a little disappointed that the leadership couldn't present a report. i want you to understand that it's important for the sunset district to have this transparency of what is going on through the cac. this information that there was going to be a presentation by mr. sean kennedy at the cac meeting. here is a page from the powerpoint that identifies having an outreach on the way. nobody in the outside group, the focus group being talked about new this meeting was happening. they did not know mr. sean kennedy was going to present. they didn't know they had an opportunity to speak and to bring to that cac their concerns. this is a transparency
6:35 am
problem i'm bring to go your attention because i believe this body needs to know. you are going to be hearing more from the people because this process is not going the way you would like it or the way we would like it. i have respect for this body, and i want you fully informed which is why i'm here today of introducing the topic of transparency. >> albert chow. ( calling names ) >> public speaker: my name is albert chow, also the secretary of people's park side sunset. the association on -- street. we were given notice back in october about the project that's going on in terdel street, but we were not given a chance to voice our opinion. there is a certain amount of layer of lack of transparency that we don't get to see the full process that we are properly address
6:36 am
some things and work with sf mta on taravel. i believe it going to be disruptive to the community and the merchants and just basically stifle the energy that's starting to grow or taravel street now and the work on mission street is not with positive result. we want to work with sf mta to push this project more and make it successful for everybody. >>clerk: ( calling names ) public speaker: my name is dallas -- what i think is happening is i think this is being sold to us not in a very clear manner that i think all can understand. i think you have a lot of fast talking people
6:37 am
that try and run it right through us that we can't get a grip on it. more than that, being a business owner on taravel street, we went through a beautification process on taravel street and now it's being torn away. let's say you have a beautiful garden and now they are putting concrete on it and now there is a lot of businesses on taravel street. if you think about divisadero street, it's just a matter of time where we all ban together as san franciscans and business owners. what if we get together and say, hey, this is not going to happen and we come to you for guidance. we are hoping that you guide the people who try to guide us. thank you.
6:38 am
>>clerk: mr. chairman, apparently there is someone who wants to speak to you on item 7. >> weiner. >> public speaker: now, there have been some improvement. i won't deny
6:39 am
6:40 am
6:41 am
6:42 am
6:43 am
6:44 am
6:45 am
6:46 am
6:47 am
>> 3 years ago declared that lift in san francisco. even though the drivers are considered. later, uber very disgruntled taped and interview with technology conference in which he said that
6:48 am
every ride lyft is taking is going to increment the model. now we have 25,000 vehicles selling half price rides to the public and it's an unfair business practice and violates many federal laws and protection as regulators i'm calling upon to you get the data base in front of the commissioners so they can make people pay the right proper rate. >> thank you very much. [ applause ] >> ( calling names ) >> hello, my name is albert chow. sunset merchants association. i want to bring to your attention what's going on on the street.
6:49 am
there are four lanes. there is a perfectly good lane that doesn't need a transit lane. it doesn't get stopped up that much. the boarding islands that their featuring to put down there are the double streetcar lanes that wipes out the parking for our customers on the areas where those boarding islands are for the streetcar stops. on taravel, we are going to lose 150 spaces. parking is already at a premium. people do drive to our businesses. over 50% of my customers drive to my businesses and i can say that for other businesses on the streets as well. they are putting signal lights on taravel street. it's not busy of a street and they want to put signal lights down. the other thing is they want
6:50 am
to remove some stops. i believe six stops are going to be removed. they are trying to speed up the transit and save 3 minutes between the zoo and the west station. from those 3 minutes, if you take away those stops, people with disabilities will lose that, will take that extra 2 minutes to walk that extra distance. i want to bring those to your attention and we will continue to do so as the process moved forward. thank you. ( calling names ) public speaker: my name is edward house brook. you wonder why folks like me come to the agenda and why you are hearing from folks
6:51 am
about after this is already extended. i think there is a systemic solution which will be easy. which is the final proposal to change a street from two way to one way or take away a parking meter has to be posted on the block. there is no such requirement and no standard code from your department to post notices of outreach meetings about streets on the streets that are the subject of those meetings. that is quite simply insane, it's simple. i urge you, i urge staff who are listening act on this now and urge your directors to direct staff to post all project meetings on a projected block on that block. thank you. [ applause ] ( calling names ) public speaker: thank you, what i want to also as a public comment for the businesses that are
6:52 am
being affected by the many changes in our corridor, not one is, i have asked for economic impact report on our businesses. not one has come up to say, hey, it didn't occur to it. that was the answer. it didn't occur to us. moreover than that, we understand there was a predevelopment report -- so i can't produce for the next following day. i just want to bring it to your attention. >> thank you. next speaker, please. ( calling names )
6:53 am
>> good afternoon. i'm driving a taxi cab for 24 years. we have been been driving taxi cab in san francisco because it was well protected. then they did not allow a single out of town taxicab to work in san francisco. because of this control, we lost and being 22 years, all cab drivers we had to pay $250,000. it's not only that they provide the same to cab companies, and they should get it free, now they want to sell for $125,000. so i approve this to some of my friends. you want to see that letter, i have it.
6:54 am
this has 3,000 behind us. they try to write the rules on taxi drivers. they have never been taxicab drivers, they don't know about tax drivers lives. if lyft drivers, they treat us like we are criminals. we paid $250,000 to become slaves to sf mta. slavery, we will start making payment that do not stop uber lyft. we want our money back. we just want our money back. we decided otherwise we will
6:55 am
start and protest is better than that creating this and for the -- [inaudible] >> thank you, sir. >> public speaker: thank you. directors, good afternoon. my name is marcelo fonseca. i'm sure you can tell, people are very upset and disappointed the way the approval of your budget with the $1,000 renewal fee included. it's never been so depressing, it's never been so demoralizing to be driving a taxi in this city. with all due
6:56 am
respect, you are creating more anger, more -- an animosity and more hardships to an industry that is barely staying afloat. once again i urge you to review this medallion fee and reconsider this fee that you have taken. we could not afford this. >> thank you. [ applause ]. >> mr. chairman, hold on, if you would. for members of the public, we have room 408 now as an overflow room. for people who are standing along the walls, we have to get you to go to room 408 now because we are in violation of the fire code. if you can be go to 408. >> you will be given plenty of time to come back when your name is called. >> if i may, i would prefer
6:57 am
to wait until these people who have been asked to go to 408 are there and they can also hear what is being said. so i would ask to put this on hold and ask the clock to be started again. >> gentlemen in the back, if you can find a seat or go to room 408. the gentlemen here, thank you. ladies and gentlemen, if you please could find a seat or go to 408.
6:58 am
>> may i ask for the clock to be reset. >> keep talking and i will start it in about 15 seconds. >> mark grewberg speaking for the taxi alliance. first, we were unaware about the medallion fees and and two of which have been waved in the previous year are coming back in the budget which you just approved. i heard that the meeting that
6:59 am
you couldn't do anything about it now because of a hole in the budget. i believe that you can do something about it. i heard that you have a $17 million reserve this year. and i also heard that you expect that your revenues are going to be higher and your expenses are going to be lower than those that are reflected in the budget. so, i would ask you to defer all of these fees until some point perhaps early next year when you have a better handle on the budget and see if those numbers play out and if so, we need this help. we were there for the mta. you took something like $100 million out of taxis when your budget was restrained. we need you to be here for us now when our budget is restrained. other thing, we support the end of 8,000 medallion
7:00 am
program. these should be phased out so not to create the hardship for drivers or for the flywheel company. it should end. we oppose the 8 medallion. let the s medallion holders continue with dignity and respect. >> i don't think i got my full 2 minutes. >> you did, sir. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> robert weiner? ( calling names ) public speaker: herbert weiner, at the last meeting a statement made that i take exception to.
7:01 am
that in the budget negotiations that everyone has to be given a little to. i think we've given a lot of we've given up parking spots, traffic lanes, we've given up money for bus fares, we've given up bus stops. i think we've given up more and what are we given in return? the reply maybe, gee, get the mta board an that is not enough. we have to be treated effectively. the bikes got nothing. everybody should be given a contribution. maybe this board ought to give up $1,000 a year to show good faith that they are supporting mta because right now this is an inequitable
7:02 am
arrangement. i really take offense to that philosophy. these are my personal words on that. i don't mean to be an attack on noel, but there is we give a little and a little and there will be nothing left of us. >> next speaker please. >>clerk: ( calling names ) >> good afternoon, commissioners, tom vies oh, i have been a cab driver for 25 years. i'm here today to ask you to reconsider the rule coming on may 1, that we have to take 1,000 app orders and if we don't we
7:03 am
have to join flywheel. i would estimate that 77% of our drivers are on fly wheel. we are doing at least 1,000 app orders one way or another. also we do over 16,000 radio calls. the whole city is not app oriented. obviously 68,000 orders they call from their mobile phone. i don't see why we have this rule of us joining another company that we already had a presentation and didn't think it would suit our business model. so forcing us to be in business with another business to who knows what could happen in the future, i think it's
7:04 am
covering by colusing and this sort of governing is totally wrong. thank you for your time. public speaker: how are you. 25 years cab driver. this is a problem. we could not afford to pay the mortgagor rent or anything you want to name it. as myself, i pay $1451 to the bank. anytime you go to the airport for one, $15, you pay $5 for airport fee. you imagine if you get like that, what do you live for? if i make $400 with all that i pay, $50,
7:05 am
$50. this is a joke. the guy said i'm going to sell my medallion. i cannot handle it anymore. this is not a situation. mr. heinicke, you said it is good for to you buy the medallion. what is the good? i must lose everything. please, sir, i'm asking you. i am for the retirement age. i don't want to continue. do something. [ applause ] 25 years. i use in van. you pushed me to buy the medallion. right now i can't not continue. swear to god, i feel sick.
7:06 am
mentally, my family, i'm at the point where i cannot handle it. it's good for you. believe it or not. the young generation. pay for it. you are not losing something. please do something. you are a smart guy. ( calling names ) public speaker: good afternoon. my name is -- i'm driving cab since '97. i bought the medallion since -- there were no uber such thing. please stop uber operating
7:07 am
in the city and the airport. if they are taking 2 hours to pick up customers. please. stop them. that way it's going to be sure everybody is having. they shouldn't be allowed to lower the price. mta sold us the medallion. i think it is your duty to protect the cab industry. also, i want to see the mission statement, the new signs that there is no left turn. they are not just vehicles
7:08 am
there. they go from valencia and market street. we need to pick up the customers to make a left turn right turn. if a customer is flagging, we could not go there, we have to go around the block. we are wasting more gas and time and the customer too. the other thing, the medallion fees, i think it's ridiculous. in this time, i say please, stop doing that. and that's with an i want to say. please stop uber operating in the city. they are making a mess for us.
7:09 am
public speaker: good afternoon, members of the board. i have been driving a cab for 25 years. it's difficult to do this job. there is a lot of hardships, it's regulated. i try to create my lifestyle for a regulation that you created and then came over lyft and they got away with anything they wanted and no regulations. they can go to any city and charge this or that. we could not do any of that and now you want to impose these fees. i have a son and he's 3 -- 13 now. i was hoping to retire and now i have a hard time making enough money to make ends meet. you want a transit for a city which is fine. it's great. the bicycles are fine, but what have you done? you sent 30,000
7:10 am
uber and lyft guys on the street and putting us under the bus. now you want to give us a $1,000 fee. i don't mind the business license fee, it's fine. the other thing that you have done to stop uber is to give them a $91 license fee. please do not make me pay the $1,000. all the medallion holders cannot afford it. it's a very stressful job. please consider. have compassion for us. thank you very much. >> next speaker, ( calling names) public speaker: i have been driving a cab for 25 years. we are stopping the payment for next year. i want my money back. you can have your e card.
7:11 am
there is 37,000 people driving in uber lyft. we don't make money. we make only $40-50 a night. do you have a plan to give people $250,000 back in do you have a plan in ( calling names ) public speaker: good afternoon, mr. member of the board and mr. chairman, mr. nolan. we have too many cab drivers here today. we are very strongly against your medallion. if you keep going on, any kind of package pack to the street
7:12 am
because this will really affect our income. we are losing up to $800 per month with some kind of mislead by your office. your office mislead you many many times. they said $8,000 they don't go to airport and after 9 months they approve to go to the airport by you, but now you can't afford to see your own medallion running. now it's fine you about now we can't afford it. i have been told by your office some kind of super power do not attend the meeting unless i agree to go to meeting and i can only speak 1 minute only. am i a criminal to go along with the cab driver to go to the meeting is guilty, am i a criminal because we want to bring suit to your
7:13 am
office but we got shutdown by the meeting. the kid sounds like an animal. out, out, they treat me like an animal, like a homeless guy looking to rent a room at the fairmount hotel. you get a salary because we pay you, but now they treat us like this. please dismiss your 8 medallion and your 3s medallion. we are happy to pay you monthly. otherwise this is a petition that we would like to sign. i volunteer to do this because i have been a target for from interest groups before. thank you very much.
7:14 am
public speaker: i have been attending a few meetings but nothing is accomplished. here maybe i have been harsh in my language. there is not a way to afford a living in this kind of business. there is no one paying attention from sf mta to city hall. we have a meeting here and after that it's gone. but we don't see anything accomplished. the fees, plus airport and you think you did to us, it is nothing. we don't have anything to fight for us. before that when we that had cab detail, you were helping us. it seems to me because they are locals, and plus the 8,000 medallion, you are adding it up, you are making it worse. come and see our situation at the airport and
7:15 am
because me and my colleagues purchased the medallion for a quarter million dollars, if you make other rules, it's not like -- this is our situation. we are going to stop making the payments. it's not because we have the money and we need to compete with you, ladies and gentlemen, it's because we don't have. i'm not trying to jeopardize my family. i have four kids and a wife. i have responsibilities. they leave these payments, pay that. delay this payment. pay that. we are in a miserable life here. you need to consider. you need to move on and do something. i appreciate whatever you want to do in the future. i am waiting. [ applause ]
7:16 am
>> public speaker: i'm speaking an individual in the environmental quality act. in the last 2 weeks, several of the calendar items with the enclosure with the categorical exemption. i appreciate that. the next thing would be to include in that document in the packet. some are about 10 pages and it's very difficult to navigate the department website to get to the ceqa document. once again, i think there is one item on your calendar that is an approval action item. i would hope that staff could take a little bit more attention to ceqa to note and make that document available. otherwise, thank you. >> thank you, next speaker,
7:17 am
please. >>clerk: ( calling names ) are any of those gentlemen here? michael kietting. mr. saddler is here. i'm going to call a few more names before you start so people in the other room can come. ( calling names ) saddler, amyel lawrence. >> i'm michael kietting. i want to thank the director and board members and staff of sf mta to help scoot. i really appreciate the support of
7:18 am
the sf mta allowing us to park in the garage and allowing us to park our electric mopeds. san francisco is now a home to the largest providers to san francisco. we are now as big as city carshare and we are almost as big as zip car and that is fueled by a big demand by fast and affordable by green transportation in san francisco. to meet that continued demand, we need the continued support of sf mta. in order for our riders to access the $3 trip, they can't hire a driver at that price. they have to keep going. which today isn't possible but is possible with today's sf mta. the typical scoot driver is for
7:19 am
someone who isn't in a hurry. allowing them to use this service, we have a number of a request for staff to expand parking for this process and we ask that you support the goal. thank you very much. >>clerk: ( calling names ) public speaker: good afternoon, board, again, happy earth day. we are excited about this amazing thing happening in this last year. we are very excited about what's going to happen. many of you have seen that our very happy riders have been reaching out, about 700 of them have
7:20 am
had some minor changes to the rules is to expand the process which is under going right now. right now they are restricted to parking in the neighborhood curbs to under 8 feet. but the program has been so successful. very few complaints, very few tickets. it's been wonderful. we would like to see that expanded to other areas where there is a little bit that nobody is using. this would be a way to take advantage of that space. the time between scoot rides is a few hours on the median which is amazing that this type of transportation is getting people to move around the neighborhood. there is opportunity for transportation and we would like to see that grow. the other thing that we are suggesting as well is along the lines of the vanpool permits that you have currently, we would like to see a citywide permit that
7:21 am
allows parking at metered motorcycle stalls so the cost of that permit is covered and would allow that parking as well as parking where it's legal between cars and meters. this will open up the area where scoot camp allows our neighbors to park and allows for opportunity to get around. thank you very much for your support this year. i look forward to working with you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. public speaker: ladies and gentlemen, i have spoken several times. my income has crashed over
7:22 am
60-70% since the medallions. bl there were reports there were 16,000 uber. back almost 2 years ago, it was reported in the paper that 27,000 lyft and uber on the streets. you could not sell anymore medallions. the ponzi scheme came to an end. you go back to several months ago and even a week ago it was reported in the paper that there are 37,000 uber and lyft cab drivers on the street. the mayor report 24% grid lock in the city is attributed to uber and lyft.
7:23 am
the license by this commission and limiting in their cars and parking lots. hundreds everywhere. sleeping and living in their taxis while the proliferate ors in san francisco. the chief of police says he can arrest taxi drivers or citing but the mayor doesn't want that. what are you going to do. i thank you for your time on this matter. ( calling names ) public speaker: good afternoon, i'm daniel frost.
7:24 am
taxi medallion 546. i have had a yellow cab since 1977. generally speaking, the city has not treated us that well. it has imposed a lot of mandates and took away our transfer ability and the reason i'm here is to say please don't charge us $1,000. the yellow cab is in bankruptcy right now and we are not getting any income off of that. the main reason i am here is i have been trying to retire. i have sent e-mails and my lawyer has communicated with staff members here and there is no response. i have even tried to contact the office and no response. it's unfair for you to discriminate against me holding a medallion since 1977 and put the poor people
7:25 am
who paid $250,000 recently to the head of the list. it's been reported to me that 70% of all the redemptions are going to those folks. i don't feel that i should have to suffer. i'm 63 years old. it's been reported back through ms. stan feld that it's going to be 5 years at least instead of maybe 2 years. i have copies of my e-mails. i would like to submit them to you for your review. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >>clerk: ( calling names ) public speaker: good afternoon. i would like to say i'm a taxi driver. i'm also a medallion holder. i bought my medallion for $250,000.
7:26 am
mta reissuing 8,000 series for the bargain price to lease the taxi company and the s holder. but for the medallion holders a payment average minimum wage. so it's unfair, plus this situation, they create anger among the taxi drivers for those medallions and stealing the driver at the same time. please stop the 8,000 and the s 4-year operation fees associated. because please stop 8,000 s. thank you. ( calling names ) the last
7:27 am
speakers cards on this topic. >> public speaker: i have been a cab driver for about 30 years. i'm currently with yellow cab. i'm here to ask for a reduction in our medallion renewal fees. basically we are in a situation in this industry where we are competing against companies that have huge amounts of private investment capital. they are all intended on building market share. no one knows how profitable the industries are if they were to stand on their 2 feet. they are offering very discounted rides, low rides. whatever, cab drivers are in no position to compete with these people. they don't have the capital to compete. given the situation where the cab industry is basically not doing very well. imposing fees. if you don't have to at this point it
7:28 am
would be a gesture to an industry that has been with the city for a long time that i think has a place in the city. and has a function in the city. having this industry become something that is regulated by a large multinational corporation taking out the individual considerations that goes with the city that sets up regulations that responds to conditions that exist in this city, not in singapore or other countries is really important. to keep things afloat we need your help. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> ( calling names ) >> good afternoon. public speaker: thank you, chairman and the board members.
7:29 am
we are unable. we can't do that. we bought the medallion for $250,000. after that they started imposing numbers. then i bought that medallion and there was no proposals. uber and lyft are taking all the fares in the city because they are cheap. they are not playing the game fairly. we want our money back. and whatever you want you can do it. but give us our money back
7:30 am
just give us our medallion money back that we pay and i go home. thank you. >> ( calling names ) public speaker: i have been in the cab business for 45 years. friday we had some common sense. last friday we finally found out that the people who drive for uber are actually in business in the city. i mentioned to the city once before. they are in business. being in business in the city they are subject to business regulations. nothing has happened there on that particular. something else here we should be noting and that's the the uber and those guys, they have their
7:31 am
cars scattered around the city. that's part of their business plan. they don't keep people locked somewhere. as far as i understand they are working in an insurance domain if you will, an insurance situation where they don't pay commercial insurance. well, until an order comes along and then they suddenly start paying insurance. i mean, this is incredible. they suddenly become, they are the same car, but they suddenly become a commercial vehicle. well, we have a hard time competing. we have to pay as taxi drivers, we have to pay commercial insurance right down the line. i think it's time that they because they are part of the businessman, let them pay commercial insurance too finally one quick point, it's time you
7:32 am
loosen your purse and give back the money we have given you and get the city to delineate and clarify the location between the puc and regulatory powers. it would be nice if we had some nice clear standards. >> ( calling names ) the last people who turned in the speaker cards. public speaker: patricia voluntary, i was planning on not speaking to this public comment. but through the public comment i heard the colleagues, can we take this item same house same call. without objection this same -- line.
7:33 am
cab driver, mta versus senior citizens. i think you should go back to the drawing board. i think i'm discriminated against because i can't walk long distances and that people that bike in bikes don't have to pay a fee, they don't have to have a license plate and don't have regulations. all day long i was driving around to see the situations and there were 3 across the lane even though there is a bike lane sitting there. it maybe legal in california, but it causes problems. we need to take a look at fairness among all of us and the right to work, the right to our fairness. it's a common statement at these meetings.
7:34 am
we really need to look at what is the right thing to do. thank you. >> the last person to turn in a speaker card. public speaker: i want to underline about medallions. about these medallions most of these drivers, they have never done this. it's rough. i believe they never controlled this green uncontrolled crash they have paid their drivers. now they want to keep these medals for the rest of their lives. okay, they can
7:35 am
do it. they are seniors. they can keep these medals for the rest of their lives but only as a souvenir. it's the best souvenir. i have more points but this should be enough. the best ever so you have near to put it on the book shelves. also they wanted to exchange. in companies as i know don't want to take them. they want to exchange at least for anything. i also want to remind you and sf mta department would take care of city ground transportation and traffic flow. this is not a department to take care of people's social benefits which kind of part of communicating with city hall business too.
7:36 am
this is not plans to take care of social benefits. there is other departments to take care of this. please, everybody should make and do their jobs including all of transit. >> thank you. >> no other members of the public to address the boardnd public comment. >> if there are people out in the hallway or 408. there are chairs now. moving on to the consent calendar. these items are considered to be routine unless a board member or member of public want to have the items considered separately. you have received request from members of the public to several items, j, k, p and q, all of
7:37 am
these have to do with commuter shuttle locations, also item 10.3 and item 10.4, so all of those have been served -- severed from the consent calendar. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? okay. let's go back to 10.2. >> mr. chairman, you want me to call all jkp and q together. >> yes. >> all right. steve carson, janet burgess. public speaker: my name is
7:38 am
steve can -- carson. i attend the meeting on moving the bus to carson street. dolores is a quiet street. it may appear wide but it's a narrow road. it is not suitable for large buses. other streets like guerrero which is flat is a better choice. the city imposed weight limit on guerrero could be changed. a cal trans map may call dolores arterial, but take a look. it is not. i appreciate the complaints by supervisor wiener. please deny this change or at least delay it until you can do further studies to
7:39 am
explore more suitable alternatives. >> next speaker, please. >>clerk: ( calling names ) >> good afternoon. public speaker: good afternoon, i live at 499 steiner street on the corner of oak and steiner. we have such air pollution already. it is sickening. the buildings are all black with it which is particular cancerous. we have a family shelter across the street with little children. these buses that are going to be on the corner on that south corner of oak and steiner, they are going to be idelling. the laws is 5 minutes. do you think they will really do it? who is going to over see
7:40 am
they go by the epa rules. there can be only 5 minutes idling and after turning on their motors, they are to leave, 3 minutes. now, our building is absolutely black, new buildings that have been painted recently, they are black within 1 year. so, would you please don't put more. when those buses move out, there is going to be idelling all the way back to the pan handles. this needs a better study. it's so congested now, you are not only getting noise pollution, but air pollution. it's making it almost impossible to live there. would you please look into it further. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >>clerk: ( calling names )
7:41 am
public speaker: >> good afternoon. my name is -- oh own an apartment on 1712 felt street. this is a proposed site for a corporate bus stop. as this slide will show, this has identified this has identified as one of the busiest and most accident prone location in the city of san francisco. there is another slide that shows here that it is the most dangerous intersection at the
7:42 am
particular location. it has the most bicycle collisions and the most severe accidents at the location. at the last meeting of march 18th, the organization that's going to manage those buses told us the stop is 2 minutes per bus. there is two buses stopping at the same time and with loading of bicycles, it will take at least 8 minutes as we have had several people tell us where they have stops that allow bicycle loading at their locations. all of your owners of the three buildings that are affected have their egress and access to their
7:43 am
garage very limited and if those owners would park in the parking lots in the parking entrance to the garage, they are getting tickets to give them free access. i just want to state that i don't believe my property rights. >> thank you. >> sorry, sir, your time is up. ( calling names )
7:44 am
public speaker: good afternoon, my name is john jordana, i'm opposed to the buses being imposed on our street. as stated at the march public hearing, many of my neighbors have an over arching concern about any of the vehicles on dolores streets. this led us to draft a petition. we have obtained over 600 signatures of san francisco residents on that petition. i was told by alex, of the mta that when a valley lane has such restrictions, traffic engineering considers traffic. on a majority of these factors, dolores street is less safe for large commercial traffic than
7:45 am
nearby streets. it has narrower lanes and steeper grades to guerrero which is adjacent to streets. it has no stop signs or traffic lights. those pedestrian crossings that are not marked. disclose has several schools. i have seen people open their doors to let their kids get in and out. we request that the mta board evaluate the street for commercial weight restriction. this will help protect the safety of the residents and help the city achieve mission zero. i have the petition here. 600 signatures. i have a more details comparison of dolores to guerrero. it's very interesting. i wrote it.
7:46 am
thank you for your time. >>clerk: ( calling names ) >> good afternoon, chairman nolan. mr. riis kin, board members. i'm with a 29-year-old neighborhood group. i'm here to voice our opposition to the plan commuter shuttle stops on dolores and to offer your support to impose a commercial vehicle weight restriction on dolores street and remove it's designation as an arterial street for the following reasons. dolores has a very lane and large number of pedestrian crossings that are not protected by stop signs and traffic lights. increased traffic by buses
7:47 am
would affect the children at the schools and preschool. we have very steep road grades. muni buses do not operate on dolores street and we don't believe it will be safe for shuttle buses too. this is not a case of not in my backyard. we support the commuter shuttle program. it is not working perfectly but working better than funneling all the buses to dolores street. this is not fair. it would make a very difficult situation untenable. it will not only negatively impact the lives of valley residents but all the resident school children. please, impose the vehicle weight restriction on dolores and remove the buses from the street.
7:48 am
thing you for your time. thank you. public speaker: hi. my name is paul birne. i signed the petition. i have four quick points to make. the first point is about transparency. the original outreach program to the neighbors directly impacted by this was handled very poorly. in fact many neighbors did not even know that this was in fact about to take place. second thing is it's incredibly confusing because we have been told in our meeting of march 18th, that there were 30 buses going south and 30 buses going north and now we are told by supervisor wiener's office that there are 55 buses going south
7:49 am
and 20 buses going north which makes no sense to me. and the transparency and talking about other topics is the murky nature of what this program is supposed to entail. again, i think that sf mta needs to conduct an impact study and provide some sort of report that covers your specific requirements with road slope and alternative routes. this needs to be a completely transparent report and that report needs to be distributed to the people that are going to be impacted by this change. thirdly i think the entire idea of funneling traffic is unfair to the people living on that street. the present system is working as the way it is and working fairly.
7:50 am
pushing everyone on to dolores street is unfair. lastly, i would say it is a safety issue again for dolores street. the captain of the ingleside police station has already decided that -- >> thank you, your time is up. ( calling names ) public speaker: edward mason. there are many non-signalized streets. they are going to make noise when they start the grade and acceleration and you have a loud
7:51 am
air-conditioning noise. the number is 55 for the rush hour, is that 55 per hour at valencia or is it going to be 55 vehicles for the 4 hours? regardless, i think there should be a study done for the weight restriction for consideration. are you going to have a measure failure to impose stop for how much congestion is going to be created? there should be an appropriation of stops from the muni bus stops that are now going to white zones. it's viewed as public space for private use. lastly, there should be the regional express bus system that mtc should be studying as task 11 in their study of the freeway management system in the bay area. and that is the area where
7:52 am
we need it. there have been no muni buses on dolores street for over 30 years, although they were only on there for a very small segment with the 11 hoffman, but dolores street, you have steep grades on there. there is considerable damage already on 24th and dolores from the vehicles turning from 24th to go up the grade between 24th and jersey. so there is already been demonstrated damage for the infrastructure at 24th and dolores. public speaker: hello, my name is lorn howls. the idea of funneling through dolores is ill
7:53 am
conceived. it has extreme traffic and lots of children crossing. i will take guerrero every time because dolores is totally inappropriate for a street with access. i think the weight restrictions on dolores must be applied. i think guerrero is a better alternative and doesn't impact the residents as much. >>clerk: ( calling names ) public speaker: good afternoon, i'm jamie, i'm a homeowner. i oppose the proposed shuttle stop there because that corner is also as you have seen a very dangerous corner along the panhandle and congested with cars and pedestrians and cyclist. a shuttle will completely block our and our neighbors
7:54 am
visibility when backing out of the driveway. the proposed shuttle location blocks multiple drive ways which include more than the units or which are about 9 units that are actually blocking at the egress up to 8 hours a day for the residents that live there. additionally the people congregating are a hazard. plus we believe the there are other options. there is already an extra traffic lane that merges immediately at oak and it doesn't impact the residents as directly. >> next speaker, please.
7:55 am
>>clerk: ( calling names ) public speaker: my name is jack mcneil. i live on dolores street. i was one of those picking up signatures for the petition. i'm very concerned with having the shuttle buses running down dolores street where they have not been many buses at all. i agreed completely with supervisor wiener, john and mason and all of the things that they brought up that basically funneling the buses is not a good idea. i think there are better alternatives. thank you.
7:56 am
>> next speaker, please. >>clerk: ( calling names ) public speaker: public speaker: i didn't know about this until neighbors informed me weeks ago. i think funneling these buses on dolores is not a good idea. i would appreciate if you look further into it and move very slowly against having these buses move across the streets of san francisco. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >>clerk: ( calling names ) public speaker: i'm one of the users of the recs center. it's at the doors of the 29 proposed defactor hub. i say defactor
7:57 am
hub because the stops in between are very far away. there is nothing entirely up the hill. during the daytime, it's full of parents, nannies and children, lots of children, okay. it is necessary for many of these caregivers to use cars to come to that spot. parking is already impacted in a big way. if we have a defacto hub at 29. i know from my own experience of people living down the hill, people are going to drive down the hill to get to the hub. it's 17 stories up to diamond street. the fact that someone can just walk it. if you look at a flat map, it is not telling the story. there is going to be a line of uber and taxis surrounding this hub and there is going to be so many cars impacting this area.
7:58 am
if you look at 30th and dolores which has had a pedestrian death as part of vision zero we are trying to improve that after 30 street, it narrows into one lane. you have this intersection that is congesting and grid locked with muni coming down 30th street. they are stopped and traffic is stopped that way and then we have to go to these long buses that merge onto san jose street. it's just a bad idea. i urge you to rethink this. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >>clerk: ( calling names )
7:59 am
public speaker: i'm ruth mcbegins, i'm in my 50th year of taking this service. at the corner, almost at the corner of dolores and 30th is a senior center. most of the people there move slowly and a lot of them cross dolores street and these buses would make them very nervous at the most, but since so many of the them are small and so many people use walker's, i think it's a bad idea to have delores as a very friendly buses to use buses. we don't mind them on 30th
8:00 am
street and in the valley in general, but dolores street. a friend of mine on the bus said this morning, that's crazy. i agree with her. it is crazy. i have another interest. many buses in muni have taken away bus stops and us as seniors we have to walk a quarter mile from one bus stop to another bus stop. on mission street, this is intolerable. the hope the removal of stops is considered. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >>clerk: ( calling names ) public speaker: good
8:01 am
afternoon, what brings me here is something that we have in common. that is safety. the reason you work for this commission is because you are concerned about safety and so am i. i live on 24th street close to dolores. my son works at the day school. the stops we are discussing between 18 and 19 and two at 29 during the morning and evening commute. what i say and i agree with the previous speakers is that this poses a real safety issue. for example, children's day school goes from preschool to 8th grade. parents come and have to turn into a driveway in the morning while they
8:02 am
are rushing to get to their jobs and drop off their children. they have to make that turn and drop the child off and come out and also watch both ways to get out of there to get to work on time. can you imagine more buses coming 2-3 at a time blocking their access and egress with the jumping of kids. and this holy family day school which services 161 families also on that block. so i think this is something you should consider. there is senior center. i ask you to not approve this. also feld street is not a
8:03 am
good idea. >> next speaker, please. >>clerk: ( calling names ) public speaker: hi, here is a postcard that was sent out if anyone wants to see what it looks like. it was about 6 weeks ago, it's small. it gets caught in someone's magazine. my name is lea's tracy. the proposed commuter stop in front of 79 and oak is in front of my home. i think it's a bad location. i have been assessing other possible locations. you are going to block two of my neighbors drive ways with two families getting out on oak and just getting on the street is impossible. i mentioned that you need to put an
8:04 am
initiative in place to look at the problem on oak. have any of you drive down oak in the morning? it's backed up to divisadero many days and nothing coming from you all to fix that problem and you are going to dump all of these buses onto oak. you will be taking on parking in front of a 20-unit section h housing apartment building with over 50 people living in it and many of them are disabled and elderly. so computers will be standing right in front of their building and the buses will be pulling up for 4 hours everyday in the morning. i'm opposing this and ask you to reconsider a better location on oak street and also work with the dwp about your tree problem. i was told that you looked at another
8:05 am
location but the trees maybe in the way. please talk to them about it. >> next speaker, please. >>clerk: ( calling names ) public speaker: good afternoon, my name is susan epstein. i'm one those of unlucky souls that supervisor scott wiener referred to earlier. although i do support the shuttle program in general, i'm opposed to these corporate buses blocking access to my own garage and limiting hours when i can access my garage. this is a burden to my home and my neighbors homes. i'm a small business owners and i keep my vehicle in my garage. i keep my vehicle in the garage and i
8:06 am
need unrestricted access for my business. it seems they are creating an easement in front of my garage. is more than access. the city is preventing access to my property. i did not agree to yield my property rights. if the city insist on eminent domain i ask for the property value for my home. when i bought my home in 1992, one of my must haves was a home with a garage. i paid tens of thousands of dollars to have my own garage. restriction to my property interferes with my business to entering my own home. if you do this, we
8:07 am
will take action in court and will have a petition for an upcoming ballot for a measure that council can vote on. you cannot prevent access to garages and the voters from san francisco can decide on that issue. thank you very much for your time. >>clerk: ( calling names ) >> good afternoon, sir. >> good afternoon, my name is matthew green. a homeowner. i'm here to oppose the proposition bus stop. as indicated by many of the members of the audience, this is a bad space for a commuter shuttle stop. blocking access to three multiunit
8:08 am
apartments buildings making it difficult for me to enter my driveway. the intersection is one of the dangerous intersection in the panhandle area. i have personally seen multiple pedestrians hit by cars. it will make it difficult to see oncoming traffic. there are other locations that are more appropriate with less impact to individual homeowners. yes. please do not do this to us. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >>clerk: ( calling names ) public speaker: good afternoon, my name is trisha star bar from
8:09 am
the panhandle association. moving this on an arterial street is a good idea but this was identified as being the 12% of streets that get 70% of the accidents by the mta. this is why the masonic improvement project was created. that said, adding another layer of traffic by locating the shuttle stop is a recipe for disaster. it blocks three garages and restriction three parking spots not to mention the congestion it creates. i urge this board to move this down the street between base and lion. this is no garages there. it is not at a business intersection and it would also be safer for bicyclist and pedestrians and drivers. on behalf of the
8:10 am
panhandle residents organization i thank you. >> hello, my name is hank lynn. i'm here to oppose the bus stop on 16th and church. the bus stop is working. it's helping my business tremendously and businesses around it. i'm asking you guys not to remove the bus stop. and like mr. scott wiener said, let's not funnel the buses onto the arterial street. that stop is working.
8:11 am
please do not move the bus stop. >> public speaker: leticia, divisadero. we never got this. period. putting buses in front of private businesses and private drive ways is illegal. what you are doing is you are taking the civil rights of the land owners away from them. you are taking away the safe free, entrance and exits to their own property. you are hurting the neighbors and the fellow businesses by doing these
8:12 am
bulb outs in front of their drive ways. this is a big ada issues. people have the rights for medical services, they have the rights to be able to get medical equipment and you can't with these bulb outs in front of drive ways. they have a right to live a live and a quality of life. proposition m of this city. i am disturbed by the fact that we are not informed. i am disturbed about the fact that the ones again the process with feld divisadero has been very little to the public and you did not study the los which is still in the law. you need to take this back to the
8:13 am
drawing board and try to find some solutions. this is wrong and wung -- once again you are looking for failures and accidents and death. i have informed you. >> seeing no one else. questions and comments? >> my only comment would be that i think we've shown there is nobody who is really welcoming these with open arms except for the gentleman with the cafe on third street. thank you, sir, i really do appreciate that. i think taking what supervisor wiener said into account, you know, that i also support the commuter shuttle program, i hear the concerns of the people on the streets where these shuttles are going to be. i
8:14 am
would like to hear director reiskins advice. i want to do what is least disruptive to the program, least disruptive to the individuals on the streets where the shuttles are going to be located and give the staff the opportunity to really fine tune this program. we are never ever going to reach 100% agreement and open arms with this program. so, i want us to proceed and i'm not quite sure what that path looks like, but i want us to proceed in a way that gets us forward with the least amount of disruption. >> if i can add to that, madam vice-chair. what was the thinking between choosing dolores over guerrero? >> let me ask tom mcguire, sustainable streets director to come forward and he can explain. i think you have heard a lot from
8:15 am
the dolores folks the issues about the designation from the street. just to recall one of the most persistent complaints that we heard during the pilot program was that we have big buses on small streets and that was inappropriate and one of the changes that we made in the continuing program was to restrict the ability of the buses to travel on those small streets. a consequence of that is that there are now fewer streets in san francisco where the same amount of buses can travel. i think supervisor wiener was not inaccurate in saying that the same fewer buses in the streets and the same conversations in particular with approaching the on ramps. which is what we are trying to balance so we don't disproportionately impact any particular street or
8:16 am
community. i think tom can speak to some of the considerations and tradeoffs. there were a lot of very good points made by the public. a lot of the alternatives are some of which probably that our staff did review. >> i would like to say something about the dolores versus divisadero. >> if one of those considerations is weight restrictions on guerrero and how is it to change that weight restriction if that wouldn't pose a threat to the street or safety. >> thank you, directors, as director reiskin said there are a number of new constraints on places we can put commuter stops that result to embark on the 1 year program that went into effect april 1st. the most important one that
8:17 am
commuters can travel on arterials. the buses can only travel on arterials. that limits the streets that buses can travel. the reason that provision ended up in the program, it certainly that had support of a large number of people who came to the public events and commented on the pilot program. a comment we heard insistently on the program where the buses were circling, picking up and idelling on very narrow streets. there were specific concerns about the bus touring in front of homes and we moved from buses being allowed to travel on arteries. so the
8:18 am
specifics with respect to dolores street, are that dolores is a designated arterial street. guerrero street is also a designated arterial but has a commercial weight restriction. the only other viable north south street in that part of the city is really valencia which has a high volume of commuter shuttles in front of it and several buses where it's running today. many of the bus stops that we are suggesting relocated to this item, as we are asking for a vote on today are currently on church street. and on 30th street. so those are the streets that are not arterials. so while we heard comments about spreading the impact
8:19 am
and the benefit of the neighborhood, we are restricted for the next year from letting the shuttles operator church or 30th. >> those terms are you said they are imposed by someone else or just our own terms in >> in the legislation that both this board passed and also in the resolution at the board of supervisors that passed that where the supervisors came into an agreement on this. >> thank you. >> in addition to a group of number of residents have talked about the hub. we pledged that we would come back april 1st within confines of the hub. we are seeing in discussion today some of the pros and cons
8:20 am
and what would be affected by the impacts on those particular locations. this is not, what we are doing today is not part of the hub, we are not doing this as a precursor to citywide hubs. we are recommending or requesting that the board -- this is to comply with the arterial rule. >> are you saying that both guerrero and church are arterials. could it be either one or could it be a combination. >> church is not. >> dolores and guerrero are arterials. can they be each on those streets. >> we would have to lift the weight restriction on guerrero. >> why did the 3-ton weight restriction come for
8:21 am
guerrero. is it going to fall through the street or is it fixable. >> that decision was made by the board for traffic regulations by this board. >> so you are going to blame us? [ laughter ] i guess the question is, what is the reason. if there are land minus under guerrero street that a bus that big is going to blow up, then no. but if there is another viable alternative, then tell us. if there is a weight restriction to spread out the buses and it's the least practical, that maybe something this board is interested in considering. >> it's a fair question. we are not currently aware of any fatal flaws. but it is not something we studied. >> when is the plan that
8:22 am
these buses will start picking up all 55 of them on dolores, or excuse me, cruising down dolores? >> let me be more transparent, is there a time to study this before the buses end up on dolores? >> the situation we are in now is the buses are in church and they are not complying with the rules. >> when were you planning to make the switch in ? >> there is only a lead time to implement something like this. >> if you start on dolores and it was determined that we can lift the restrictions, that there are no fatal flaws to my analogy, is that something that could be feasible, changed at that time or is it better to keep it as it is and wait for the violation and wait for the study. >> i think in the spirit of what director called, this is a winning program, i think it's
8:23 am
absolutely viable. >> i would support looking at guerrero to see if it could take at least some of the burden off dolores. disclose is a very steep street in many places and there are a lot of places that people cross that isn't really marked. i would appreciate that be looked into it. i don't know if that's a consensus here. >> can i ask a few more questions about this. do you believe that having the buses on arterial, on 30, do you believe that leaving the buses there impose a pedestrian problem? >> that wouldn't be posed by the arterial. if we delay moving the buses to dolores, to study the whole thing and possible guerrero alternative, are we running a continuing safety risk on
8:24 am
safety and 30th. >> i think it's not a black and white issue, but there are safety concerns about dolores shuttles on the small streets and they are not just a public perception. those buses are quite big and those streets are quite narrow. >> the other dimension that we have already begun in other parts of the shuttle network enforced shuttle operators who are not driving on arterial streets. so we gave them a period of time to adjust, but we are now expecting that they all operate on non-arterial streets. so we would have to kind of work out something out of that enforcement as well. >> okay. >> so this is not directed
8:25 am
to the residents. you were very well represented. i think it's a good program of taking the cars off the streets and helping people get to their jobs. no. 2, the benefit of moving to arterial streets continue to make sense to me. but no. 3, maybe what all policy makers strive to do is to make twice as many people unhappy as we have today, that just what fr what we are hearing, that if there is no fatal flaw as staff says or any other compelling reason not to lift that weight restriction, it does seem fair to spread the traffic over to these arterials if there is know meaningful traffic effect. that is at least one item
8:26 am
that i would want staff to consider and look at. i think supervisor's wieners comments are right on and we need to think about the overall spreading so if one specific group or 1 specific street isn't taking a whole burden of a program like this. >> i agree. and listening to mr. heinicke, i am inclined with the understanding that we can continue to make changes in this program. i am inclined to make a motion to approve these items with the understanding that we as an agency, as staff will continue to look into what we can do to reduce burden on any single street. i feel and mr. mcguire, correct me, i feel that is going to give us a
8:27 am
clear path forward if we reject it and send it back is going to delay it more, is that true? >> i do believe that is true. >> i'm sorry i interrupted you. >> no, go ahead. >> i have two concerns to that. one is that if we go forward it maybe difficult to change it going back just not because mr. mcguire wouldn't want that and obviously he's a consummate professional, but once there is a lot of energy directed to change you have to direct more energy to rechange. i say that not as a political issue. my second concern is these are traffic patterns. people get used to them. if we go and take buses off of church and 30th and everybody gets adjusted to that and put them on dolores, people get used to that and the drivers become aware and then if we change it again, it presents
8:28 am
a second change in pattern and that affects automobiles and safety. my sense is we study this quickly and make the change once so that neighbors, walker's, parents, drivers don't have to get acclimated to a new system a second time. >> i would totally support that, actually. >> we have a motion on the floor. is there a second to that motion? >> the motion dies. >> okay. there is no second to the motion so the motion dies. >> i'm not prepared to support the dolores street thing at this point without taking a look at guerrero. that is something that can be done in a couple of weeks or a month to come back with the weight limit
8:29 am
thing? >> i think the engineering study that director heinicke was talking about could be done fairly quickly. i would caution everybody that we have to do public outreach to guerrero street. >> some thing about guerrero makes a lot more sense to me, there are far more businesses there. >> be careful, they are going to be here for the next meeting. [ laughter ] >> mr. mcguire, what's our timeframe for the program we have already approved that removes the shuttle buses from non-arterial streets. >> that's where it gets a little tricky. that went into effect april 1st and we've already been working closely with the operators to move all of the non-arterial streets, so they are already driving a different pattern. it's just the stops haven't changed. >> the driving patterns of
8:30 am
the buses have already changed, but the stops have not been moved. >> the dolores street with 50 something stops a day. unless they are the biggest ones by far. >> that was my misstatement. it's not 50 stops. >> it's 50 buses. >> there are more buses there, is that correct? >> good afternoon, carly payne. long time commuter shuttle. the no. 55 that supervisor wiener referenced, that's our estimate of number of stops. so individual bus stopping to load or unload at the zones. the place that we got that number from is looking at the aggregate of the two stop locations that are being
8:31 am
removed to create these zones. we don't, and honestly we didn't do analysis to see if there was one bus that stops at both of those locations, so it would be lower, or could be higher. but that's our estimate based on what we know during pilot what the activity is during the two previous zones. the other clarification i wanted to offer is to the extend or while in the absence of these zones, we will see either continued non-compliance with our rule of you have to use arterials or additional pressure on valencia street and san jose. just to be clear about where these vehicles would be while we are waiting.
8:32 am
>> so the clarification of the stop events on dolores is each bus at each stop. they stop at 29th and event. >> if it stopped at 24th and 29. it would stop at one of those locations. it would be unlikely they would stop at both because they are relatively close together. >> can i ask a question. where are the other buses stopping now? >> this morning, for instance? >> this morning, i think some of them are not complying and stopping where they used to stop, but many of them are on, i got a tekt from my
8:33 am
colleague. >> on the arterial and not close to their riders. we definitely heard complaints from riders and residents waiting for them to get off. >> if we don't approve this today and we let things kind of stand as they are even though they're what we already approved about the resolution which was to move these off our arterials, we are going to have commuter shuttles in sort of non-compliance that we will then need to turn a blind eye to because we haven't given them an option for something else yet? i completely see director heinicke's point that we want to make one change and get everyone used to the one
8:34 am
change. i want us to have a clear vision and the public to have a clear vision. if we don't implement these changes and like you said it's a wild wild weston this now. >> that reminds me that we have been commuting with the shuttle operators that they need to get off the arterial streets, get on the arterial streets, sorry. and that has to remain constant. that we've been giving them the message. what will happen is is we'll have much more shuttle activity on valencia to san jose and buses will run on some combination of church and perhaps dolores while we move towards a decision. >> so, we are going to have
8:35 am
problems sort of no matter what we do here it sounds like. either we approve this now and then we make the changes to it as quickly as we can to diffuse the concentration of the shuttles on anyone street or we don't approve it now and the commuter shuttles are left in some odd limbo. >> right, i think with the first option. >> if i can clarify, i wouldn't say if we don't approve this, i don't believe that this is necessarily any limbo or need for going along with our compance. instead of perhaps being spread over valencia and dolores, they are all going to be on valencia. i think we would need to
8:36 am
enforce against any non-compliance. so i don't think that it's wild west or limbo, it's just that it's further constraining until we can do this other analysis where they can be. >> how long did you say it would take? can you give us some guidance on the guerrero question? >> i think it's a few weeks to a month to come back. >> that seems reasonable to me to check that out to see about possibly dividing these. some on dolores and some on guerrero. >> there would need to be some outreach to the guerrero stakeholders that would need some of that time. >> for sure. >> it seems like a more natural street for it because of the business. >> i take it that stretch of guerrero is on the supervisor
8:37 am
wiener's street as well. >> yes. >> so this also since it looks like we are moving towards not approving this and continuing this item, this also means that the oak questions, perhaps we spent a lot of time talking about from the people who showed up on dolores street, the concerns there, maybe we can take a second look to see if there are any other options or better options. i think staff has done a good look out there. >> before we leave dolores street, can i know where we are. formally we are not going to adopt the portion at least related to dolores street with the understanding that director reiskin and his staff will be back at the next meeting after to tell us they have studied guerrero street that there are some flaws and restriction or
8:38 am
there are not and here is the proposal to spread the traffic moreover these arterials. is that where we are leaving this? >> i certainly heard that as the sense of the board. we can come back in a month and tell you whether there is potential on guerrero. that is probably not enough time to have gone through the process to rescind the restrictions and evaluate and conduct a public hearing about the potential stop locations. we can do the former in the month but the latter will take more time. oor -- >> do you have an idea how much time? >> for the whole process, we would be back again in a few more
8:39 am
months with guidance. >> i think we need more information on guerrero. that would be important thing for me at any rate. >> so we need to discuss this. >> it is greater number of shuttles and sharing with guerrero. it seems like it's much more of a stops location. >> one or two actually. two stops seem to be the focus of the
8:40 am
concern here. >> so, may i ask a question about that? does the proposal put a commuter bus in front of people's drive ways? >> yes it does. i want to remind the board that's the condition we have on other avenues. >> so i guess the one proposal to alleviate that and not have that situation was as someone suggested was moving the stop to mercy terraces. i take it it's something you all evaluated. >> between baker lion. >> he's going to ask that question. >> kevin chew, engineer on the project. good afternoon, members of the board. as we evaluated
8:41 am
these stop locations, we took a number of factors into account with many being where the shuttles are stopping and the shuttle zone exist in proposition to ones where you are proposing. but with the proposal we are making sure their far side zones that are going to allow the shuttles to pull completely next to the curb and not block visibility to the connection. >> to postpone the one on dolores for a month. >> or a month or as long as staff needs to get back to us. >> that will be offered as a motion. >> that is a motion the
8:42 am
approve p and q. >> i appreciate the context that drive ways are blocked. that bothers me. someone buys a house and the bus is blocking the driveway. i'm surprised we haven't heard about this before. maybe the bus stop is for people who don't use their drive ways that much or people used to having their drive ways blocked. i have to say that is a concern to me. >> we also have a lot of muni stops that are in front of private drive ways as well. and we have that come up in recent rounds of stop relocations
8:43 am
that same concern that we are putting muni stops. >> i realize that gets creative. but a problem that you buy your house where it is. regulatory choices. >> there could be a muni stop as well as the shuttle stop. >> let me find the motion and the second. if you look at item 10.2 k, that item includes oak street from south side to early street that it would be to continue the item as it relates to dolores street. if the motion is approved, that would be with the understanding that with
8:44 am
item k as it relates to oak street and p and q would go through. >> that was my motion. >> i would second that motion. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? 1 no. 5-1. thank you. >> okay. can i just ask one follow up? it came out in this discussion. we had a discussion about notice and one of our residents from the sunset or park side, someone interested in taravel street suggested there was no posting of notice on the corridor. for example when we have outreach about changes to the
8:45 am
taravel, that is not consistent with my understanding. i wanted to be clear. is there actual posting on the taravel corridor so people can know about the outreach going on. >> so different types of projects and programs have different posting requirements. we did establish a couple of years ago internal standards for those kind of postings. depending on the size and scale. i can tell you on taravel there has been a tremendous amount of outreach. i can't tell you how the notices for meetings have been done. it's been out there. it's something we are doing but to make sure that folks are aware of changes that we are proposing. meetings that we are having with opportunities for them to provide feedback. i will say that we can
8:46 am
never do it to everyone's satisfaction. we have been trying to do it better and better as time goes on. what is heartening for the turnout in all the e-mail and all the correspondence we got that certainly a lot of folks know about these proposals. >> i definitely know that the slight irony that we have hundreds of people complaining that they didn't get the notices and the changes they are complaining about. as i have said before, if we are going to make a change to a stop, or a service at a stop, it seems to make imminent sense to me that to make notice of that as soon as we know it to post it at a stop. so hopefully that is going on for the taravel standards. i appreciate all the discussion you do on this front.
8:47 am
but if you can check that because if it's wrong, i want supervisor to know that we have an abided by the standards. >> also pertaining to the mission street. let's move to item 10.3. >> one speaker on 10.3 approving the parking and traffic modification to correct the directional inaccuracies in two parking and traffic modifications along the 30 stockton muni transit corridor. public speaker: this is an administrative issue, but i think that what mr. heinicke said
8:48 am
sit opens the issue up again. this is a far side location that was in front of a bank that really wants it to stay, move back to the near side in front of a bunch of small businesses which is discriminating, and the near side it has trees, those boxes for all the newspapers has underground storage for businesses and i think that we are loseing the right of free enterprise. it's not good for ada or neighbors and workers and customers will have pollution because it's smaller businesses instead of a large one. existing locations, you can see 40 feet in all directions. new location, you are going to have to take away parking places once again. i think that this
8:49 am
breaks equal. in fact, ceqa habs broken in this case. civil rights, the right to live a life of quality and safe and healthy manner by seniors with all the changes on this program, particularly octavia and scott are the big ones denied the right to be able to shop and because many of them are handicapped. okay, that's my objection. i just put it on record. thank you. >> i will make a motion for approve. >> is there a second. >> second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? that is approved.
8:50 am
>> 10.4. approving parking and traffic modification to flement new buys terminals and bus stops for the 1 california 29r 19, avenue rapid. >> motion to approve it. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? . thank you. we can have a break >> all right. next item on the agenda. the board of directors met in closed session to discuss labor negotiations with the labor negotiator, the board did not take any action. directors would it be appropriate for a motion to
8:51 am
disclose or not to disclose the information discussed? >> not to discuss. we are adjourned. >> all right. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>
8:52 am
8:53 am
8:54 am
8:55 am
8:56 am
8:57 am
8:58 am
8:59 am
9:00 am